Being an outsider and looking in all this I only really see the large stories that pop up here and there. And most of them all relate to something Mittens has said or done that is just absolutely stupid by all definitions of the word or you ask yourself after reading the article, "How does he even tie his shoes in the morning?" I don't think we do much better up here in Canada to be honest, but Mittens just freaks me out.

Obama could have and will do much better if the R stopped their obstructionism "by principle". If he appeared to loose the debate was because he was sick and tired of fighting flying bullshit (again) instead of having a serious political exchange with Romney.

Romney was lying out of his ears...if you think that means "winning the debate"....
The only winners are the media...now they have a race and they can sell their ads.

There are not 2 parties in US. there is one and then there are the CRAZIES.
Please turn your brain ON before voting.

Really. You mean that after 8 years of that war criminal of bush and Cheney you think it's a good idea trust the crazies again? I hope no one in your family it's in the military.

I thought popular opinion shortly after Sept 11, 2001 was FOR a war against various countries/regimes in the middle east?

"In October 2001, a poll by CNN/Gallup/USA Today indicated that about 88% of Americans backed military action in Afghanistan, and a poll by Market Opinion Research indicated that about 65% of Britons supported having British troops involved."

So are you saying all US citizens are war criminals?

I love how whoever is in power, people are very quick to criticize their decisions, rather than think about what they'd do if the decision was theirs? Say you were the leader of a powerful imaginary country, and tomorrow terrorists bombed a major shopping mall killing 5000 people. What would you do? Nothing? I'm asking an honest question here. What is the right thing to do when a terrorist group kills innocent civilians in ANY country as part of their extremist beliefs?

People are quick to criticize the US for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, yet we sit here 11 years after Sept 11th still enjoying relative peace on north american soil.

I thought popular opinion shortly after Sept 11, 2001 was FOR a war against various countries/regimes in the middle east?

"In October 2001, a poll by CNN/Gallup/USA Today indicated that about 88% of Americans backed military action in Afghanistan, and a poll by Market Opinion Research indicated that about 65% of Britons supported having British troops involved."

So are you saying all US citizens are war criminals?

I love how whoever is in power, people are very quick to criticize their decisions, rather than think about what they'd do if the decision was theirs? Say you were the leader of a powerful imaginary country, and tomorrow terrorists bombed a major shopping mall killing 5000 people. What would you do? Nothing? I'm asking an honest question here. What is the right thing to do when a terrorist group kills innocent civilians in ANY country as part of their extremist beliefs?

People are quick to criticize the US for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, yet we sit here 11 years after Sept 11th still enjoying relative peace on north american soil.

Yeah.

GO watch 11 years of documentary and books on 911, Call me when your'e done.
Never trust the "Official excuses" for war. Historically they are always false.
What terrorist group exactly? The SAUDIS that were allegedly flying those planes? Hmmm why they didn't bomb Saudi Arabia again?

GO watch 11 years of documentary and books on 911, Call me when your'e done.
Never trust the "Official excuses" for war. Historically they are always false.
What terrorist group exactly? The SAUDIS that were allegedly flying those planes? Hmmm why they didn't bomb Saudi Arabia again?

Blah there's already too many 9/11 documentaries on TV. I'm not talking about the governments excuse, I'm talking about public opinion. Your government is democratic and they are supposed to make decisions based on public opinion are they not? If public opinion strongly opposed the "War on Terror" in the first place, would bush have done it?

Now looking at historical wars... Do we need to look at who struck first as the person starting it? Because WWII was (primarily) started by the Germans. Sure there is a history behind that dating to well before WWI but the initial aggressors of the main war were the Germans. Yes Russia invaded Finland in 1939, and there was a civil war in Spain (which Hitler supported) among other things. But Hitler was the aggressor. Should we not have fought back?

Okay so the war on terror. This may seem like more of a grey area, but I think the basic premise is that some religious extremist groups don't take too kindly to the fact that the US supports Israel. So they conduct terror activities like hijacking planes and flying them into civilian buildings killing innocent people. I'm aware this goes back a lot farther than that, back to the cold war with the US supporting Iraq vs. the USSR, etc. etc. but the basic premise is there. NATO fights their troops, and they come and bomb our civilians. What is the right thing to do?

Blah there's already too many 9/11 documentaries on TV. I'm not talking about the governments excuse, I'm talking about public opinion. Your government is democratic and they are supposed to make decisions based on public opinion are they not? If public opinion strongly opposed the "War on Terror" in the first place, would bush have done it?

Now looking at historical wars... Do we need to look at who struck first as the person starting it? Because WWII was (primarily) started by the Germans. Sure there is a history behind that dating to well before WWI but the initial aggressors of the main war were the Germans. Yes Russia invaded Finland in 1939, and there was a civil war in Spain (which Hitler supported) among other things. But Hitler was the aggressor. Should we not have fought back?

Okay so the war on terror. This may seem like more of a grey area, but I think the basic premise is that some religious extremist groups don't take too kindly to the fact that the US supports Israel. So they conduct terror activities like hijacking planes and flying them into civilian buildings killing innocent people. I'm aware this goes back a lot farther than that, back to the cold war with the US supporting Iraq vs. the USSR, etc. etc. but the basic premise is there. NATO fights their troops, and they come and bomb our civilians. What is the right thing to do?

With all respect...you want to have a constructive discussion? Keep up. What are we going back in time? 911 and bush are past thankfully.

Really. You mean that after 8 years of that war criminal of bush and Cheney you think it's a good idea trust the crazies again? I hope no one in your family it's in the military.

You do realize Obama has continued almost all of Bush's policies and in some cases even expanded it right?

That's fine you like Obama. But at least get the facts right.

Obama has not given up any executive power secured by Bush. And in fact has contradicted himself on all the points he criticised Bush for. And you're falling for it, hook line and sinker.

Gitmo. Still open.
Military tribunals. Still open.
Rendition. Still used.
Drone attacks. Worse.
Going to war without congress approval, hello Libya and Syria. Congress, Democrats and GOP, both criticized him for that. Didn't care.
Executive Privilege. Still used it.
Transparency? Ignored it (every bill will be up for 5 days before voting, all health care talks will be on Cspan - both ignored).
Told everyone he was never going to bypass Congress. He does it.
Was going to ban lobbyists from working in his administration. Issued waivers the very next day after the ban, and in some cases no waivers at all.

What executive power did Bush wield, that Obama is not wielding, for you to come to that conclusion. Name one.

Patriot Act? Not only did he support renewing it (it has to be renewed every year), he expanded it.

And this one is the kicker. He applauded the assassination of a US citizen without due process. Anwar al-Awlaki. This is the first time in our history a US president has boasted about assassinating a US Citizen, no matter how evil the guy is (Hey, I'm all for killing the guy).

Who signed the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012, which upended the 1878 Posse Comitatus Act, a very significant act which says the Military shall never engage in activity on US soils without Congressional approval. If the military wanted to arrest a terrorist on US soil, the FBI or locals would have to do it. Now the Military can do it, without approval from Congress. This is another civil liberty signed away. By Obama.

Back to the patriot act. He renewed the wiretap provisions, and it took the GOP house to revoke it.

That is your President. Prefer him for many things, but don't prefer him because you believe he was different than Bush. He is worse than Bush, because he's taken everything Bush did, extended it, and slightly expanded it.

You do realize Obama has continued almost all of Bush's policies and in some cases even expanded it right?

That's fine you like Obama. But at least get the facts right.

Obama has not given up any executive power secured by Bush. And in fact has contradicted himself on all the points he criticised Bush for. And you're falling for it, hook line and sinker.

Gitmo. Still open.
Military tribunals. Still open.
Rendition. Still used.
Drone attacks. Worse.
Going to war without congress approval, hello Libya and Syria. Congress, Democrats and GOP, both criticized him for that. Didn't care.
Executive Privilege. Still used it.
Transparency? Ignored it (every bill will be up for 5 days before voting, all health care talks will be on Cspan - both ignored).
Told everyone he was never going to bypass Congress. He does it.
Was going to ban lobbyists from working in his administration. Issued waivers the very next day after the ban, and in some cases no waivers at all.

What executive power did Bush wield, that Obama is not wielding, for you to come to that conclusion. Name one.

Patriot Act? Not only did he support renewing it (it has to be renewed every year), he expanded it.

And this one is the kicker. He applauded the assassination of a US citizen without due process. Anwar al-Awlaki. This is the first time in our history a US president has boasted about assassinating a US Citizen, no matter how evil the guy is (Hey, I'm all for killing the guy).

Who signed the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012, which upended the 1878 Posse Comitatus Act, a very significant act which says the Military shall never engage in activity on US soils without Congressional approval. If the military wanted to arrest a terrorist on US soil, the FBI or locals would have to do it. Now the Military can do it, without approval from Congress. This is another civil liberty signed away. By Obama.

Back to the patriot act. He renewed the wiretap provisions, and it took the GOP house to revoke it.

That is your President. Prefer him for many things, but don't prefer him because you believe he was different than Bush. He is worse than Bush, because he's taken everything Bush did, extended it, and slightly expanded it.

I prefer Obama to Romney. At least he promised to strike down citizen united?
Do you acknowledge the total obstructionism of the Republicans? How would you be able to change anything if he has to fight EVEN for stuff that would appear obvious?
Since 911 this country has turned into something else.... And apparently most americans like it.
The intervention in Libya was minimal...and we are not in Syria..

Gitmo. Still open.
Military tribunals. Still open.
Rendition. Still used.
Drone attacks. Worse.

Totally agree with you and it's a shame. But I'm convinced that Romney would do even worse. And suddenly he's popular because he can lie on television? Are you kidding me??